Croping 2.35:1 to 1.85:1

[ToninhoFWi]

Hi,

I have a film and its total size is 6 GB. I´m thinking about crop it using LanczosResize(720,480,87,58,546,364) but I´m not sure that if I do this I can improve quality.

My question is this: if I rebuild the original film and a cropped film, there are any significant qualit improvment ?

Thanks and best regards,

Toninho.

I´m using
DVDRB 0.65
CCE 2.67

[jptheripper]

cropping will remove video info.. so you will only lose quality.

regardless of the aspect ratio the video is still the same pixel count, i.e your choices are only 4:3 and 16:9. IN 16:9 1.85:1 just has smaller bars than 2.35:1, so whether you are using the bits for bars or video doesnt really matter to the best of my knowledge

[ToninhoFWi]

Thanks for the info, but there any other way to make the size of video smaller and lose less quality?

I don´t need 2.35:1 because I have a widescreen TV and a video with a 16x9 aspect ratio is the best for me.

Thanks and regards,

Toninho.

[The Geek]

I guess you have the film on the PC rather than on a DVD, and you have the TV plugged to the PC.
In that case, you can use another codec. One that derives from MPEG-4. You will still lose a bit of quality, and if you resize it to 16:9 you will lose about 1/3 of the entire picture, but the size will be less.

The Geek

[Trahald]

Originally posted by jptheripper
cropping will remove video info.. so you will only lose quality.

regardless of the aspect ratio the video is still the same pixel count, i.e your choices are only 4:3 and 16:9. IN 16:9 1.85:1 just has smaller bars than 2.35:1, so whether you are using the bits for bars or video doesnt really matter to the best of my knowledge

solid black bars compress better than motion video. you would want to crop so that the bars are even to the block size (16x16pixels)
to make it the most compressable

[jptheripper]

interesting, i new the bars compressed well, but i always thought the edges sucked up more bitrate than the bars helped

[TheSeeker]

I dont know if its just me.... but why would you want to chop up a movie like this? I mean to me this is almost like taking a nice widescreen movie and chopping it up and making it fullscreen. I mean why would you NOT want to see the whole frame as the director intended? With the tools out there now to make a fantastic looking backup why would you need to do this to get better quality. In my opinion its not making it better its making it much much worse... Am I the only one that feels this way?

[scharfis_brain]

To add some comments:
Sometimes, the director shots his Film completely on a (near to) 4:3 formatted Film (non-anamorphic).
afterwards, the 1:2.35 widescreen image is built by cropping of this 4:3 picture.

If you crop away left & right from this movie, you will loos addidtional information!

it is like having an 20x15 cm² - Photo, which you are cutting down to 12.5x7 cm² .

[Trahald]

...but i always thought the edges sucked up more bitrate than the bars helped
as long as you crop by 16x16 (placing the edge line at the edge of your blocks) you are ok. This avoids ringing at the edge line and extra bitrate needed. it is only when the edge line is in the middle of a block that there is a problem.

but why would you want to chop up a movie like this?
Well.. i only advocate it removing a tiny bit from the top and bottom for the above reasons (some studios dont crop even to the macro blocks) .. and from the sides because my I cant see that stuff on my CRT TV anyways.

[jdobbs]

1. To each his/her own. I personally don't like to cut anything out of a movie. But some people like to fill the screeen of their 16:9... and that's ok.

2. You can never improve quality by changing size.

3. If you want to fill a 16:9 screen you have to resize to 1.78:1 a 1.85:1 ration will still have black bars at the top and bottom (only smaller).

4. Happy Halloween, all.